Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 08:00:27 GMT From: Eugene Grosbein <egrosbein@rdtc.ru> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/172166: Deadlock in the networking code, possible due to a bug in the SCHED_ULE Message-ID: <201210020800.q9280Rug082824@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR kern/172166; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Eugene Grosbein <egrosbein@rdtc.ru>
To: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, eugen@eg.sd.rdtc.ru,
Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: kern/172166: Deadlock in the networking code, possible due to
a bug in the SCHED_ULE
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:59:31 +0700
02.10.2012 14:53, Alexander Motin пишет:
> On 02.10.2012 10:48, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>> 02.10.2012 13:58, Alexander Motin пишет:
>>> About rw_lock priority propagation locking(9) tells:
>>> The rw_lock locks have priority propagation like mutexes, but priority
>>> can be propagated only to an exclusive holder. This limitation comes
>>> from the fact that shared owners are anonymous.
>>>
>>> What's about idle stealing threshold, it was fixed in HEAD at r239194,
>>> but wasn't merged yet. It should be trivial to merge it.
>>
>> Would it fix my problem with 6-CPU box?
>> Your commit log talks about "8 or more cores".
>
> Hmm. Then I see no reason why threads were not stolen, unless they are
> bound to specific CPU. Check `sysctl kern.sched.steal_thresh` output to
> be sure.
All NIC's threads and dummynet are bound in my boxes.
igb(4) in RELENG_8 bounds its threads by default in very wrong way,
so I rebound them. dummynet(8) in RELENG_8 goes wild under severe load
unless bound to single or two cores.
kern.sched.steal_thresh: 2
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201210020800.q9280Rug082824>